<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=windows-1252"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<p>Thank you for your inputs, Omo (and others).</p>
<p>Each of the draft policy proposals at
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.afrinic.net/en/community/policy-development/policy-proposals">http://www.afrinic.net/en/community/policy-development/policy-proposals</a>
is a solution to an existing or foreseen problem as observed from
the authors' viewpoint(s).</p>
<p>To my knowledge, all proposals updated by their authors after the
last public policy meeting have been duly returned to the mailing
list by the co-chairs for further discussion. The quality of the
resulting discourse is however dependent on the authors, the rest
of the PDWG, and willingness to engage on the (granular) substance
of the proposals rather than personal or ideological differences.</p>
<p>At any point in time, the Policy Development Working Group (i.e.
all who CHOOSE to participate on the RPD mailing list and/or in
person at the public meetings) has the opportunity to provide
feedback on the policy proposals. Authors of policy proposals can
choose to incorporate the feedback received to produce an improved
proposal that the majority of the community is (more) amenable to.</p>
<p>I recommend that as a community, we should: <br>
seek solutions that are (roughly) acceptable <br>
rather than <br>
seek to impose our point of view (no matter how correct they may
be) on everyone else. <br>
</p>
ALL OF US (policy authors or not) should channel our input toward
solutions that build consensus rather than simplistically adding +1s
and -1s on completely divergent points of view. Since we
(supposedly) all have the best interests of the AFRINIC community at
heart, we should seek to unite rather than divide. Operating in this
manner, we would find that #3 and #4 as listed in the preceding
emails are actually non-issues.<br>
<br>
Regards,<br>
Dewole Ajao.<br>
PDWG co-Chair<br>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 25/10/2016 09:05, Omo Oaiya wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CAG1eoi3f5wUzmTquMpKq7HOWbiFjZi_DeY0VUS1fNzAtDX50-g@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">
<p class="gmail-p1">Dear Community,</p>
<p class="gmail-p2">I am not suggesting there is a problem with
the PDP per se or criticising the co-chairs, past or present,
but recent discussions on accountability and co-authoring a
policy proposal has resulted in my taking a closer look at the
PDP and its requirements.</p>
<p class="gmail-p1">The current PDP (<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://www.afrinic.net/en/community/policy-development/251-policy-development-process-in-the-afrinic-service-region-afpub-2010-gen-005">http://www.afrinic.net/en/community/policy-development/251-policy-development-process-in-the-afrinic-service-region-afpub-2010-gen-005</a>)
adopted in 2010 specified improvements from its predecessor.</p>
<p class="gmail-p1">It lists fixing the following issues amongst
others as incentive:</p>
<ol>
<li>the case of PDP moderators inability to attend public
policy meetings<br>
</li>
<li>the lack of appeal mechanisms against moderators actions<br>
</li>
<li> issues fixed on mailing list being reopened at face to
face meetings weakening the decision making process. <br>
</li>
<li>consensus building process leading to scenario where
opinions expressed at face to face have more weight that the
ones expressed on mailing list</li>
</ol>
<p class="gmail-p1">While the new PDP succeeded in addressing #1
and #2, it has not addressed #3 and #4.</p>
<p class="gmail-p1">The current PDP introduced the PDWG with
co-chairs to perform the "administrative functions” of the
group. </p>
<p class="gmail-p1">- It did not describe what these
administrative functions were. </p>
<p class="gmail-p1">- It did not prescribe criteria for
co-chairs selection or an election mechanism. </p>
<p class="gmail-p1">- It also did not describe the process for
determining “rough consensus”. </p>
<p class="gmail-p1">As a result, we have seen: </p>
<p class="gmail-p1">- co-chairs candidates who could be more
familiar with PDP and Internet Number Resource management. </p>
<p class="gmail-p1">- insufficient moderation of policy proposal
discussions on the mailing list and at face to face meetings
leading to endless repetitive discussions</p>
<p class="gmail-p1">- inability of co-chairs to determine
consensus encouraging abuse of the process with some people
persistently opposing proposals and stalling progress with
insubstantial arguments causing unnecessary delay and
frustration</p>
<p class="gmail-p1">The policy discussions at AFRINIC-24 is a
perfect illustration. Another easy example is that since
AFRINIC-24, there has been little discussion on proposals
which were sent back on mailing list for further discussions
as per meeting minutes (<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://www.afrinic.net/en/library/policies/archive/ppm-minutes/1847-afrinic-24-pdwgpdp-minutes">http://www.afrinic.net/en/library/policies/archive/ppm-minutes/1847-afrinic-24-pdwgpdp-minutes</a>)
and no action from the working group co-chairs. </p>
<p class="gmail-p1">**Some questions for the community and
co-chairs**</p>
<p class="gmail-p1">- How do we fix issues #3 and #4? </p>
<p class="gmail-p1">- Will the proposals returned to the list be
presented in AFRINIC-25? if yes, what will be the discussion
points be and for which expected outcomes?</p>
<p class="gmail-p2">-Omo</p>
</div>
<br>
<fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
<br>
<pre wrap="">_______________________________________________
RPD mailing list
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:RPD@afrinic.net">RPD@afrinic.net</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd">https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>